Now don't get me wrong, I think what these people did for the '08 Vote, to try and get the gay marriage thing to work out in Cali, was very cool. I applaud their efforts and am disappointed at the lack of commitment by the state (or country even) to follow their lead.

However, when reading this article... is it me or do they come off whiney?

It seems 2010 isn't worth it. They want to wait for 2012.
Exactly how does that pay off? Where is the logic in that? They think they could be more prepared?

Sounds like they're concerned for their assets being used to back what they fear may have become a pointless position.

[quote]“A slapdash effort based on wishful thinking, rosy scenarios, and passion, is not enough to win on,” said Hans Johnson, a board member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.[/quote]

[quote]“What we’ve learned is that yes, you can change hearts and minds, but it takes time, focused energy, and money,” said Matt Foreman, the program director of the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, a frequent donor to gay rights causes. [/quote]

[quote]Sarah Callahan, chief operating officer of the Courage Campaign, a 700,000-member advocacy group in Los Angeles, told the gathering on Saturday that the two critical elements to persuade donors were organization and a winning plan. “No one is going to invest in chaos,” Ms. Callahan said, adding, “The money will come if you can show you can win.”

With less than 16 months until possible voting in 2010, Mr. Solomon said several major donors seemed skeptical that there was enough time.

“And we know without significant investments early on, its going to be extremely difficult to move people,” he said.[/quote]
It really sounds like everyone is more concerned with their money than the American rights here.
16 Months is more than enough time. My little rinky-dink newspaper caused a IRS Audit of our state school and even got one crazy wench demoted and student constitution rewritten in less that three months.

Yes, it's a Rhode Island school. Smallest state. And we're comparing to gay rights here of an entire state, the great state of California.

But that's the thing, we were acting like this "small problem" was as severe as what's going on there. If you lose hope or act like it's not worth the fight, then of COURSE your organization, dedication, and funds are going to go into the shitter. You're scuffing your feet on the floor and sticking your hands in your pockets....

So the obvious questions are, do you feel this is pointless? Do you feel that there is a shot this can work and they're being babies? Do you think they're right?

While I disagree with the emphasis on money, to an extent, I think they're right. Whether we like it or not, the majority of Californians voted to keep the current definition of marriage, and it's not good for a campaign that touts tolerance and acceptance to come across as a minority trying to force its beliefs on the majority.

[Edited on 27/7/2009 by Angelique]

Meddle not with the heartstrings of fans, for we are powerful and hold your pursestrings.

I remember reading in an article in News Week that California was so disappointed in the lack of turn out by voters. It seems people thought it was just going to happen and didn't get up and vote, and the people who were adamant about it rushed to the polls.

and it's not good for a campaign that touts tolerance and acceptance to come across as a minority trying to force its beliefs on the majority.

And yet ironically, the vote was for the majority to be allowed to force their beliefs on the minority. Odd that they'd find that at all offensive and want to work on repealing it.

It's an adage that is getting very tired but is very simple. 'If you don't belief in gay marriage, don't get one.' Others should just mind their own beeswax.

The group is preaching tolerance, yes. Not rolling over and going belly up because bigoted people want to force others to do as they wish them to do. They aren't trying to force the people to not be religious etc. They're just wanting them to leave others to do as they'd wish rather than forcing them to live within the majorities religion. 'Freedom of belief' and all, you know?

Regarding the California vote, from what I read, they actually had record turnout, and most of the same people who voted for Obama also voted for Proposition 8. It's just one way of proving that the Democratic Party is not a hive mind and, for better and for worse, will not always vote the way you or I want or expect.

As for the money angle, again I don't agree with it. But in any campaign that doesn't have the majority on its side, it's simply more effective to pursue changing hearts and minds first, rather than forcing the issue politically before they're ready.

What would you rather do? Taking the gradual approach of changing people's minds may work too slowly. But forcing something through politically and against the will of - in most cases- the voting majority and their elected officials will simply not work, and it's undemocratic, too boot.

And not everyone who supported Proposition 8 is opposed to equal rights for homosexual couples. It may seem like a silly semantic thing, but to them, redefining marriage is like legally redefining white to include purple.

Meddle not with the heartstrings of fans, for we are powerful and hold your pursestrings.

And not everyone who supported Proposition 8 is opposed to equal rights for homosexual couples. It may seem like a silly semantic thing, but to them, redefining marriage is like legally redefining white to include purple.

That's just silly.

Everyone knows "colors" is simply light interacting with the eye and other associated objects, producing the color spectrum and perception we now know as the anomaly of "that's blue, and that's red, and that's white, and that's purple."
a.k.a. Colors don't exist and neither does this stupid "definition of marriage".

It only exists in peoples heads. Or in their Bibles.

Not to mention, there's nothing undemocratic about campaigning or pushing hard for an idea. The other side can do it all they want too, and the fact is they are going to continue to do so which is the problem. By holding off, they (those FOR gay marriage) will loose precious time.

The "voting majority" has pushed their religious or homophobic biases on to what they think is the minority, and though you call it silly semantics, I really doubt the gay couples in California would agree to that terminology.

BTW- I live in the only State in New England that hasn't legalized it, and my Governor (who is a crackpot idiot) said "I don't agree, I think it's unAmerican, but I will let the voters decide)
meanwhile his people are funding anti-Gay Marriage groups.

Ult_Sm86 wrote:
Colors don't exist and neither does this stupid "definition of marriage".

It only exists in peoples heads. Or in their Bibles.

This is where you completely lose people who might otherwise be on the fence. To say marriage lacks any meaning except whatever we imagine it to be comes across as not only insulting to marriage, but it substantiates the fear that those who support redefining marriage wouldn't mind abandoning any definition of marriage altogether, making it anything goes.

Furthermore your argument puts off people who aren't religious, aren't Christian, or oppose further redefining marriage for sociological rather than religious reasons. There are a lot of religions besides Christianity that do not recognize any such thing as gay marriage. Finally, it's insulting to homosexuals who, while still desiring equal treatment under the law, agree that calling them married would be like calling them straight. (Shock of the century- non-heteros are not of the same mind on this subject.)

Finally, the last time marriage was redefined in the United States- when no-fault divorce was legalized and "until death do us part" was redefined to mean, "until death do us part unless, for any reason, I get tired of working on our relationship first," the result was, well, the current mess our society has made of marriage, complete with a 50% divorce rate.

Branding people as homophobic just because they oppose further tinkering with the definition that does in fact exist outside of people's heads and even outside religion is also not going to win friends and influence people, particularly if they have any good reason to be gun-shy about any more changes regarding the meaning of marriage in our society. And insulting people is just plain off-putting, anyway. The absolute worst thing the pro-gay marriage lobby could do to further their agenda was to protest churches.

Correction. That's the second worst thing. The worst is to automatically brand anyone, even someone who supports equal rights for married and non-married but otherwise permanently and legally committed couples, as a homophobe just because they disagree on what word best applies to a permanently and legally committed homosexual couple.

[Edited on 28/7/2009 by Angelique]

Meddle not with the heartstrings of fans, for we are powerful and hold your pursestrings.

Know what part of the problem is?
It's that all the christians and whatnot seem to want marriage because of their religion. Well that's great. If you want to go to a church which doesn't allow it, go ahead. But marriage happens all over the world, in all different cultures and religions, in all sorts of different customs, and you don't even need a religion to get married. You can get married by a judge if you want to.

If you don't want to marry someone, that's fine. No one can make you do something anyway. When marriage proposals are passed, and it becomes legalized, no one is forced to marry anyone at all. It just makes it so if they want to, they can. And if they want to stick to their own beliefs, they still can, but now everyone else can too.

I don't even get what they're arguement is anymore. "It's bad!" Okay, well, why is it bad? "Because my religion says so!" Well, okay, but mine doesn't. All you're trying to do is remove someone else's rights. If it's allowed, you have the same rights as always, but now they do as well.
I really don't even know what they're using as a premise for it to be banned anymore.

It doesn't make any sense that people are trying to come up with a label or definition for marriage as it relates to America.
Also,

when no-fault divorce was legalized and "until death do us part" was redefined to mean, "until death do us part unless, for any reason, I get tired of working on our relationship first," the result was, well, the current mess our society has made of marriage, complete with a 50% divorce rate.

Incorrect. First off, "Until death do us part" was not changed or redefined to mean such. That is an opinion, not a fact. And, 50% Divorce rate--That is a generational problem, not a problem with marriage itself. The nuclear family escorted their kids out of purposeful wars and into a pointless one (vietnam) and that generation grew up with so many problems it's not all too surprising they have commitment issues (and this is the top of the duck barrel or whatever the expression is, there's many other reasons why this generation sucks at staying together).

That said, gay people have just as much right to stay together or be married as the next. It's not simply that telling someone that their definition of marriage is wrong Ange, that's not what it's about.

It's simply that people are trying to tell other people who to marry.
The only level after this is arranged marriages.

I will take this moment to allow myself to humor you once more and simply say this.

I don't care if you're religious or not, if you're in support of banning gay marriage, to me, you're wrong. Whether your intentions are religious or dare I say nationalistic because you are afraid of changing the U.S.'s "definition" of Marriage, you're wrong.

They're not right, they're not wrong, they just want their marriage. And that is the matter, not the church, not the Gods, not the politics, the fact that these people aren't being allowed to get into relationships the same as everyone else. That's what's wrong.

People fought to keep these freedoms and now we suddenly are defining freedom. This crap makes me want to write a punk rock song and knock someone's head in.

Yes, with no fault divorce offering a more or less easy way out of marriage, what was previously defined as a lifelong committment with no easy out, was redefined.

How many people nowadays who promise to stick together for the rest of their lives really mean it now? Or mean it enough to work at their relationships and see their promises through? And then I've heard couples leave any reference to staying together for life out of their vows in favor of "as long as our love shall last." For some odd reason, that's still a legal marriage, even though there's no promise of a lifelong committment. The reason is that legally, marriage has been redefined so it's no longer considered a lifelong committment. The people who don't promise to stay together for life may just be more honest in acknowledging this uncomfortable, unromantic fact.

I have tried to keep religion out of this discussion because I acknoledge that people have reasons, some of them good, for their positions on the issues that are not exclusive to any religion. You claim that this is just a Christian thing, but name any society in history that has believed there was any such thing as gay marriage. Even the societies most tolerant of homosexuality regarded marriage as between male and female. (I have yet to see any evidence that ancient Athenians actually married same sex lovers.)

Finally, it's not that some people are against gay marriage. They simply think it's an oxymoron. You may think they, or I for that matter, are all wrong. But you'd be wrong in calling them all homophobic. And you risk alienating a lot of people who do support equal rights for gay couples, but object to further redefining marriage.

In the quest for equal rights, it serves to take all the support you can get, rather than insult people over the use of a word.

Meddle not with the heartstrings of fans, for we are powerful and hold your pursestrings.

Angelique wrote:Regarding the California vote, from what I read, they actually had record turnout, and most of the same people who voted for Obama also voted for Proposition 8. It's just one way of proving that the Democratic Party is not a hive mind and, for better and for worse, will not always vote the way you or I want or expect.

60% of the people who voted on Proposition 8 voted for Obama; 32% of those people voted Yes on Proposition 8. 42% of the people who voted on Proposition 8 were affiliated with the Democratic party. 36% of those people voted Yes on Proposition 8. That's not "most" to me, and I'd appreciate it if you'd quote your sources when you make such distinctly dubious claims.

Angelique wrote:And not everyone who supported Proposition 8 is opposed to equal rights for homosexual couples. It may seem like a silly semantic thing, but to them, redefining marriage is like legally redefining white to include purple.

You mean to them, redefining marriage is like redefining the Judeo-Christian definition of white to include purple. Whereas redefining marriage like *legally* redefining civil marriage to include.. you know, citizens.

Angelique wrote:Finally, it's insulting to homosexuals who, while still desiring equal treatment under the law, agree that calling them married would be like calling them straight. (Shock of the century- non-heteros are not of the same mind on this subject.)

No, they're not of the same mind, but your first statement says that they are and that they don't want marriage, for an absurd reason I've never heard before from either point of view on this issue. I know a (small) number of homosexuals who would under no circumstances get married even given marriage's availability, but that's because they don't believe even the government, much less the Christian church, needs to bless their union; the rights available to married couples should be available to all regardless of marriage status.

Angelique wrote:I have tried to keep religion out of this discussion because I acknoledge that people have reasons, some of them good, for their positions on the issues that are not exclusive to any religion. You claim that this is just a Christian thing, but name any society in history that has believed there was any such thing as gay marriage. Even the societies most tolerant of homosexuality regarded marriage as between male and female. (I have yet to see any evidence that ancient Athenians actually married same sex lovers.)

You've tried to keep religion out of this discussion? o.O If you haven't seen any evidence, that's because you refuse to look. I've written a ten-page paper on the history of marriage in high school, and I can state definitively that every society that had marriage as a concept did not limit it to one man and one woman until the Christianization of Rome. So when you appeal to history, please keep in mind you're appealing to Christian history. You are not appealing to history.

I have not mentioned religion because I actually know even atheists who do not think that a permanent heterosexual relationship is and should be called the same as an equivalent homosexual relationship. They would cite not religion, but biology and sociology as their reasons. Barring illness, age, or injury, fertility tends to be the natural condition of a heterosexual couple, and the establishment or expansion of the family unit tends to be a natural result. Even if a couple does not want children, the possibility that a child could naturally result from their union creates a dynamic in heterosexual relationships that sets them a bit apart from same-sex relationships.

Homosexual couples raising children face the same challenge as single parents in providing role models of both genders right there in the home, a challenge that really isn't an issue with heterosexual couples who stick to their marriage vows.

Another observation I've made as a someone who is bisexual by orientation, Mr. Ange-sexual by choice, is that there is something to the idea that men and women don't relate or identify with each other the same way they do with people of their own gender. Granted a lot of that is cultural, but I cannot deny that women go through things of which men only have academic knowlege at most, and vice versa. This biological as well as cultural difference creates a challenge in heterosexual relationships that again is not as big an issue in homosexual relationships.

So there are some non-religious arguments in favor of maintaining that the heterosexual relationship known as marriage, as a biological as well as social basis for the family, is different from any equivalent homosexual relationship.

Finally, just so you know, that little quote in your siggy predates Christianity by several hundred years, so obviously, so don't go just blaming Christianity.

Meddle not with the heartstrings of fans, for we are powerful and hold your pursestrings.

And anything different should be outlawed, right? As expected, you didn't address a single one of my points. And how could the Bible verse in my signature have predated Christianity by several hundred years when the Bible is the Word of God? Moreover, why would that matter?

I never mentioned outlawing permanent homosexual committments. In fact, my own personal feeling on the matter is that they should be allowed all the same legal recognition as marriage- just not called by the same name.

I don't personally feel being different is a bad thing.

For that matter, I think allowing legal recognition of permanent non-marital relationships besides the woefully insufficient "common law" designation can benefit other households too, such as- oh, what was that movie I didn't see about two heterosexual single dads raising their kids together.
Finally, Leviticus is in the Hebrew Bible, which predates the foundation of the Christian Church by a few centuries at least. It matters because it's woefully unfair to blame only one religion for a point of view you don't like that actually is shared by other religions and cultures.

Meddle not with the heartstrings of fans, for we are powerful and hold your pursestrings.

Don't worry, I'm not biased; I have the same opinion of all organized religion. In this case, the Hebrew God is the Christian God, as it turns out. Anyway, this is all off-topic. I can't hope to have my points addressed, so it's time to end my random logic injection.

They require him to cite actual examples and consequences of gay marriage. Besides "going to hell". They ask for a secular bit of evidence, they ask him not to pick and choose his evidence to apply for his argument, and the guy is clearly a nonsensical goof.

To me, a majority of the argument against gay marriage, comes from this Bible Belt theory of Same-Sex Marriage.
Is the whole argument against it from these kinds? Certainly not, but it is undeniable that these people are of poor minds and show bad form, they are ignorant and hateful, and clearly all the states approving Same-Sex Marriage is slowly showing this conservative perspective that they are not the majority.